<https://forum.spamcop.net/topic/1473-global-mailhosts-an-user-review-call-for-change/#comment-9335>
<http://schema.org/text>
"In reply to your reaction: \n\n \n\n\nNo, not always.... as SC - in my case - has been adding hosts/ip's to 'my mailhost' with each waiver I requested. The mailhosts themselves are not wrong, they are just on the wrong place now. \n\n \n\n\nNo, not in my case.... as SC has been adding these hostnames to 'my mailhost' due to waivers I requested. If they would have just provided an field to explain the waiver-request they would not have been adding the hostnames to this mailhost but one maybe called mycompany.com. Now SC even added one of my internal hostnames to the mailhost of my ISP. So this hostname now contains more wrong information then correct information. (5 wrong entries; 1 correct one) \n\n \n\n\nI understand... but in my case the mail is not forwarded from one account to another. It's fixed routed by DNS. I.e. I cannot mail the account seperate !! \n\nThis is my configuration now: \n\n0 -  our internal mailserver \n\n1 - ourisp's mailserver (mailhost A) \n\n2 - our anti-virus-providers mailserver (mailhost  \n\nNotes / My problems: \n\n- Mailhost B is still missing an hostname. \n\n- Mailhost A is containing different hostnames/IP's as SC is thinking these are hostnames/IP's of my ISP. But there not... \n\n But back to the subject: why not a more flexible but still robust system? Because I started this discussion for that; not for solving my problem. Solving the problem I tried to do by mailing the deputies.... \n\nBest Regards, \n\nChris \n"
<https://forum.spamcop.net/topic/1473-global-mailhosts-an-user-review-call-for-change/>